TargetTalk

In Nano's Change of Technique thread, Fred Mannis says:-

"I am trying a much lighter 2nd stage (than usual for me) on a new gun. I use a very light, relaxed grip. I come up, align the sights and take up the first stage below the card, then come up the short distance to my hold point in the 6 ring."

This is how I started, raising to the target, with of course the target in view. Then, far more experienced shooters explained that it is better to drop to the target, for reasons of muscle control. This sounds logical enough, but of course the target is now hidden behind the arm until the last moment.

Fred is obviously very experienced, but he is the first I have seen in print raising to the aim point.

Can Fred or someone please explain the pros and cons of each method, for a novice that is trying to get all the variables together properly? Though at present I am lowering, Fred's method does seem to have advantages.

In theory the raise above the target and lower sets the muscles better. The muscles can relax (arm lower) in a more controlled and smooth manner than they can raise. So, again in theory, that should translate to a smoother, more controlled lower into the aiming position, than the equivalent raise.

You will see a few international shooters raise into the aim but the majority over raise and then lower.

Rob.

Derek,

Don't ask me for a fully technical explanation based on musculo-skelatal dynamics because I'm no expert in that domain. I will only offer my in-expert opinion which is based on actual experience.

Some time ago I suffered a stress injury in my right shoulder. My scores tumbled because I no longer had the strength to support the pistol and could not achieve a stable hold. I've been almost three years battling my way back and am making some progress and learning a thing or two.

When my shoulder was at its weakest I discovered that I could not lift the pistol onto target, I could only let the pistol settle in from above. If I dropped below my desired point of aim I had to put the pistol down on the bench and start all over again. I also discovered that I couldn't lift the pistol with a straight arm - I could only bring the pistol up if I bent my elbow.

Given my own very limited experience, and even more limited knowledge, I have concluded that it takes less muscle energy to drop in from above the target than to draw up from below. As usual, your mileage may vary!

derekm wrote:This is how I started, raising to the target, with of course the target in view. Then, far more experienced shooters explained that it is better to drop to the target, for reasons of muscle control. This sounds logical enough, but of course the target is now hidden behind the arm until the last moment.

Fred is obviously very experienced, but he is the first I have seen in print raising to the aim point.

Can Fred or someone please explain the pros and cons of each method, for a novice that is trying to get all the variables together properly? Though at present I am lowering, Fred's method does seem to have advantages.

Good question, Derek. I have never seen a discussion comparing the two methods. I too have read the suggestion about better muscle control. I also seem to recall some comments about coming through the bull as providing an idex point for starting trigger release. I stopped using the lowering approach when I found that my eyes got confused when the sights came through the bull and I lost my focus on the front sight. A friend of mine, an ex-rifle shooter, tells me he comes in from the side. Watching another shooter at a match on Sunday, he appeared to just bring his gun to the hold point. I couldn't see much raising or lowering at all.
I have gone back to the lowering approach on a few occasions, but have not found any improvement in (my) muscle control or my scores. So I just continue to do what I feel comfortable with.

For me, I think the issue is one of balance. If I slowly settle onto the bull from above I get a more balanced feeling. I suppose it's a matter of gradually leaning back just a bit to counter the additional downward pull as the arm extends to the horizontal.

Like Fred, I raise the sights to the bull.

I like shooting all the international events. There is no time in the standard, RF or CF events to raise the sights above the bull and then settle down into the area of aim. The only events this is possible is FP and AP.

For me, training consistency is a very important factor. I find it more comfortable to adopt a shot plan that allows to me to obtain a sight picture precisely the same way each and every time as opposed to a plan that has to be altered depending on what discipline I happen to be shooting. The more things I can keep consistent, the more time I have to focus on other areas needing attention.

F. Paul in Denver

F. Paul just brought out a point that I hadn't given much thought, regarding the difference between disciplines that require quick target acquisition, and those that allow more deliberate concentration. In SP and CF, having to start from the ready position, makes bringing the sights up to the bull almost manditory, unlike NRA Bullseye, where you start with the sights aligned on the target.

In FP and AP, I've always brought my sights up above the target, (breathing in) and then down slowly to slightly below the target(breathing out), and as I raise them to a final sub six, take a small breath in and hold it 'till I make the shot or abort. I find this breathing pattern supplies my eyes with the oxygen needed to avoid blurring. Sometimes I take two deep breaths before raising the gun.

Paul

If you shoot events like rapid and AP/FP then you will never be able to use the same technique. Sure you may be able to do something similar like just raise into the target but that's about the only similarity.

If you aspire to be a world class shooter then there's an argument for concentrating on one discipline, or two complementary ones eg AP+FP.

For everybody else I would argue you're best off developing the best techniques for each event without trying to make them the same. I shoot AP and RF for example and have no trouble switching between the two, very different, styles.

Rob.

Many thanks for all your feedback guys. The various personal methods and the reasoning behind them are all very valid. It is apparent that simply lowering to the target is not the absolute Holy Grail, with Paul NC for example lowering, then re-raising somewhat.

Your input has given me the confidence to start to experiment a little, as I have been concerned that not following the accepted norm would set me into bad habits. My scores are only just recovering from 3 months in the doldrums, probably due to experiments elsewhere!

Hi

The above topic and comments are very interesting and food for thought.

I think you have to be open-minded not be put off by experimenting and revisiting old ground whether a veteran or a newbie. Through empiricism establish which suits you within the rules of that particular discipline. Simply put it is all about courses for horses and there isn’t necessarily a de facto method in acquiring shooting excellence and prowess.

Muscles tissue which comprise of fibres consisting of fast and slow twitch cells that can only be either switched on or off will adapt to any given procedure if repeated enough times. Muscles prefer naturally to flex and relax during a full excursion. Holding an arm out, lateral raise, at full reach is most demanding and unnatural especially when there is a weight at the extremity, namely a pistol. There is an amazing battle going on to maintain a near as possible a steady hold as more twitch cells are called into play with increased electrochemical intensity. Muscles work in opposition pairs or groups and a fine juggling act to maintain stability takes place. In other words more fibres are activated as the battle intensifies but this state can’t last too long as the muscles exhausts their fuel supply oxygen and glycogen and fatigue sets in along with pronounced wobble and pain. This would suggest that however one comes to the aiming area it is fluid and not held for too long – which is down to you.

I can say that I witnessed an AP shooter on the 25-metre range being severely and publicly admonished by the CRO for aiming above the bull and then coming down. He was told to come up on aim and the excellent high scoring AP shooter proclaimed he’d always aimed that way – his protestation fell on deaf ears.

As an aside for those who play drums there is the time-honoured argument about the best way to hold to the sticks. French grip thumbs up, German thumbs at side, Matched with each stick held the same in both hands or Traditional (Jazz) style not to mention the Moeller stroke technique. Then there is a whole argument as to how to use your feet on the base or hi-hat pedals. Again you do what feels right.

Paradiddle diddle TF

Usually you get in trouble for aiming above the backstop not above the bull. This is a safety issue at some ranges. I've shot at ranges that you're not to raise your pistol above the back stop, its really not that big an issue, you can still aim well above the bull or target for that matter and bring it down to the aiming mark. If you watch some shooters take the raise to very exagerated levels 70 degrees or more from horizontal.

Richard H wrote: If you watch some shooters take the raise to very exagerated levels 70 degrees or more from horizontal.

Not so sure about exagerated, Its a muscular thing and bodies are different. If you take a look and some of the world cup free pistol finalists they can have quite high rises 45 .. 50 + degrees above the horistoltal.

JY

JulianY wrote:Not so sure about exagerated, Its a muscular thing and bodies are different.

So are ranges. Match organisers are perfectly entitled under ISSF rules to impose additional range safety rules.

David Levene wrote: So are ranges. Match organisers are perfectly entitled under ISSF rules to impose additional range safety rules.

Agreed But one would expect them to do it in a polite manner, and before hand

JY

It is normal for range staff to explain any additional safety procedures prior to a shoot. That said it may be that they have to react to what in their judgement is a safety issue without being explicitly detailed in the rules. In the case of over raising the back stop - which is a clear breach of safety - the RCO would typically speak to the shooter to point it out. Again this would normally be picked up in the sighting shots but not always and some shooters have variable techniques which may have been OK early on but deteriorated through a comp.

Rob.

JulianY wrote:

David Levene wrote: So are ranges. Match organisers are perfectly entitled under ISSF rules to impose additional range safety rules.

Agreed But one would expect them to do it in a polite manner, and before hand

JY

One range that I shoot at evry year at the provincials does tell you that prior to starting.

Not quite sure what your point was, as we have no clue about what was said in regards to Torn Fibres post.

Sorry but I may have misled the readers that this was under ISSF rules.

The incident I referred to above occurred at an ex WWII RAF military firearm range until of late recently approved by the UK Home Office. Having a high brick walled backstop and in filled with correctly raked sand and well-demarcated red lines for maximum target height and where target holders should be driven into the ground.

There was a casual meeting of four gathered behind the firing line. Shooting had finished for the afternoon. No firearms, no air rifles present and nobody was shooting except for the AP shooter who was using his Rohm pistol Olympic style and taking aimed shots at a one inch disc 25 metres away and well below the maximum height line. He was well out of harms way as was the group and consistently hitting the disc.

However, this caught the eye of the newly appointed ex-army CRO who proceeded to firmly and abruptly ask the AP shooter, also ex army, a firearms expert, coach and retired firearm’s police officer, to not come down but up on aim. The pistol shooter was totally shocked and speechless. I watched and no way did the AP shooter raise his pistol anywhere near even approaching the half way level of the sand bank let alone the roof. I’d estimate no more than 30 degrees above horizontal.

Afterwards in the cold light of day the firearms CRO explained it was a cautionary warning in the interest of safety. The modest pistol shooter was none the happier despite explaining this was perfectly acceptable and he had always aimed that way with an AP using open sights.

It was soon after this incident that I decided I rather liked air pistol shooting.

I Know this is an old thread. But I have been thinking and trying the the "lift" rather than "settle", with AP. I might raise above the bull, but then stage below a little, take a final breath, get my eye hard on the sight, and "lift" to my aim area, pressuring the trigger as I "lift". I can "lift" with different muscles too. The actual shoulder pivot, or more with the bulk of the shoulder.

Reasoning:
Holding "up and steady" is very mechanically close to "lift". Everything muscle wise is in the support mode. As opposed to "settle" where something is relaxing, must stop and resupport in the aim area.

The eye can stay on the sight easier IMO. The bull is hidden when above for a settle. My eye goes "there it is" when the bull appears from behind the muzzle. That is almost a distraction.

Id like to have more discussion on this.

Thanks Jack! Yes it's an old thread, but it's never too late to receive good information.
I have actually settled (for better or worse) on the raise above, drop slightly below and re-raise to aim as being the most comfortable to me. I haven't thought consciously about which muscles I'm using, so I will have to try and pay attention next time out.
My problem, recently at least, has been a "death twitch" in my wrist, too late to stop the release process. Possibly doing final adjustments from the shoulder will help to minimise this.

jackh wrote: The eye can stay on the sight easier IMO. The bull is hidden when above for a settle. My eye goes "there it is" when the bull appears from behind the muzzle. That is almost a distraction.

Id like to have more discussion on this.

That is the reason I used the 'lift to hold point' for a long time. Revisiting the 'lower to hold point' earlier this year, I discovered that by maintaining my hard focus on the front sight as I lowered, I was no longer distracted by the appearance of the bull. As this 'lower to hold' process seemed to work OK, I have stuck with it for AP for almost a year now.